The Chinese-language Next Magazine created quite a sensation last week when it ran a front-page headline reading "[Former president Lee Teng-hui (
But in what respect has Lee abandoned Taiwanese independence? We must first discuss what the true meaning and practical implications of "Taiwanese independence" really is before we can make a fair and objective appraisal of Lee's remarks. The most imposing challenge to Taiwanese independence comes from China.
So -- even though in practical terms Taiwan is a country with its own government, territory, citizenry and sovereignty -- it cannot normalize its status and earn recognition in the international community. And because it lacks recognition from the rest of the world, Taiwan is not a "normal" country. Therefore, the most fundamental meaning of "Taiwanese independence" is the need to distinguish that Taiwan is not China.
Based on this principle, we have constantly declared to the international community that there are two separate countries on each side of the Taiwan Strait and each year we knock on the door of the UN. Domestically, we have been striving toward the goals of creating a new constitution and changing the nation's official title.
As Lee says, "We should stop talking about Taiwanese independence." Instead, we should take concrete steps to realize the goal of normalizing our country by applying to join the UN, amending the nation's title and writing a new constitution. There are two strategies for Taiwan to follow in pursuing these goals.
First, the concept of "Taiwanese independence" could logically make people assume that Taiwan is a part of China, that certain factors have led Taiwan to advocate seceding from China but that China will not allow it to do so.
Viewed from this angle, talking about Taiwanese independence falls into the dangerous logic of treating Taiwan as a part of China, which is just what China wants. But if we switch up the terminology and say that we want to realize Taiwanese independence by turning Taiwan into a "normalized country," not only is this a more accurate description of the situation, but it also helps us avoid adopting dangerously muddled logic. In the past few years, haven't Taiwanese grown accustomed to using the phrase "striving toward becoming a normal country?"
Second, in order to prevent domestic and international disturbances from blocking Taiwan on its path to normalization, it's best to just "do" Taiwanese independence rather than talk about it. This has been the pan-green camp's unspoken common understanding for many years and the reason why -- for more than a decade -- we have been taking concrete steps such as applying to the UN and talking about transitional justice, amending the national name and creating a new constitution. Aren't all of these real, practical efforts embarked on with an eye to tangibly realizing Taiwanese independence?
Taiwan Advocates and the Formosan Association for Public Affairs will hold an event on the difficulties and breakthroughs in the creation of a new constitution on March 4. Isn't this symbolic of the combined efforts of Taiwanese both at home and abroad to realize Taiwanese independence?
So how exactly has Lee abandoned Taiwanese independence?
Margot Chen is a research fellow at Taiwan Advocates, a think tank initiated by former president Lee Teng-hui.
Translated by Marc Langer
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
RSS